webbles

Well, considering that a high percentage of women have had bad interactions with men, I think that is a good indication that there is a "general issue". Just because US women don't have Afghan style interactions with men doesn't mean that their interactions should be discounted. Being groped while standing on the bus is a much less crime than being raped or sold into sexual slavery, but it is still a horrible thing to have happen and it seems to occur pretty frequently in the US. You don't even need a lot of men to be the gropers. One man can easily grope 100s of women. How do you draw a line when you don't even know where the line should be? How do you tell that man A is going to be nice to and man B is not going to be nice to you. They both could be upstanding members of your community. They both could have a wife and children. They could have 100% identical outgoing features. But that one day the woman is alone in a room with man B, he gropes her. If man A and man B look the same, what line can you draw? I get that it would be nice to have a line, but there is no visible sign on a man that he will be a predator. I would say we need to teach men to be more aware of how they impact women. I remember going to an EFY session. The speaker had a young man come up on stage. The speaker put a microphone on the boy's chest so we could all hear his heart beat. Then the speaker asked a young women to come up on the stage and walk towards the boy. His heartbeat went up noticeably. The speaker used that as an example of why women need to be aware of how they impact men. I think we should have similar discussions with men. They need to be aware that women are worried about their safety around men. And men should act accordingly. We (men) should take responsibility that the natural fact of our larger body frames causes women to be guarded. And I don't think this generalization ("men are potential predators") is anything like "all Black men are dangerous" or "all Muslims are threats". Bringing that up is a red-herring to me. Because if I'm in a room with a 350lb person who is 7' and can bench press 400lbs, I'm going to react with caution. That person can easily overpower me. Men are naturally stronger than women. Black men aren't naturally dangerous. Muslims aren't naturally threats.

Why does there need to be a "generalized circumstance"? If an individual woman has bad interactions with those that are larger than her, why isn't it ok for her to have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"? And what would be wrong with her telling her friends to also have "chronic anxiety and hypervigilance"?

I don't think the women here are saying that we need to go and tell young men that "You are, each and every one of you, a potential child molester and sexual predator, until and unless you affirmatively demonstrate that you are not". That's not what I read from their statements. Umm, I do. I treat everyone I deal with as a potential threat, whether that is sexual threat or some other threat. I don't know why I do that because I've never gone through what many women have gone through but I want to be safe. So anyone I interact with, I have to attempt to validate whether or not I'm safe around them. I feel like you and the others are actually agreeing just in an odd way. You said that "I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful." From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with that. The difference is that they see every situation as something they have to be aware. There is rarely a safe situation. Standing in line in a convenience store in the middle of the day seems like a safe place, yet it wasn't. So women are being situationally aware, it is just that most situations require distrust. I don't think the women are saying "Every man is a potential rapist" but that "Every person who can physically harm me is a potential rapist". And for the vast majority of women, most men can physically harm them. There are very few women who can physically out-class a man. It isn't "the person has an x-chromosome" that is the potential rapist but "the person who is taller and has more muscle mass" is the the potential rapist. I'm guessing the women would agree that a smaller woman around a much larger woman would also need to be situationally aware. Similar to a smaller man being around a much larger man. Having an x-chromosome does make a person larger and stronger but it isn't specifically the x-chromosome that is the problem, but the larger and stronger part. I also think that is why trying to bring up race or religion doesn't make sense. Neither of those have any impact on strength or size. That's what I'm seeing from this conversation. The point of difference isn't the statement "all men are rapists" but what are the situations when you can stop being distrustful.

Yes, it has been proposed. @the narrator has brought it up several times in this forum. I don't know how old of an idea it is but he might know.

Oh, they have always been behind the doors. They were never visible. The House of the Lord (by Elder Talmage back in 1912) has a description of it. You can read it at https://archive.org/details/houseoflordstudy00talm/page/295/mode/1up (page 295)

The stairs have always been there.

It is rare but still done. There was a guy who left the church recently (last 10ish years) and was a stake president and had received his second anointing. He gave interviews about it.

SLC is the only temple with a room called the Holy of Holies. There are rooms in other temples that probably can be temporarily converted into a Holy of Holies if needed. These are usually sealing rooms that are right off of the Celestial room. Or a sealing room that has a closet. I don't think there is any handicapped ramp. This is the first picture I know of that shows the stairs leading up into it. https://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/08/salt-lake-temple-interior.html has a floor diagram that is pretty old but it also doesn't show any space for a ramp. The floor diagram is half way down the page. You can search for "Now on the second floor, patrons enter the world room" to find where it has it. That page has a pretty good description of the Salt Lake temple interior if you are curious. I don't know of any revelation that is specifically tied to the Holy of Holies. The Second Anointing is supposedly administered in the Holy of Holies so that is probably the most common usage of it.

I only use "brother" and "sister" for those that I see in church (whether they are members or not) and with whom I don't feel comfortable with a first name basis. It is similar to "Mr"/"Mrs"/"Ms". It doesn't mean anything about "brother in Christ" or "sister in Christ". It doesn't really even mean "fellow child of God" to me. So if you happened to be attending my ward (just like you are) and I wasn't comfortable with your first name, I would call you brother. So, I'm the opposite of those in the Mennonite church culture. It is reserved for people who are not close friends with me.

The author could be late 1600s and still fit EModE. Though, there might be some things that Carmack has argued are completely gone by then. I'd have to double check. But we have the same problem with why did Joseph use EModE that would be really difficult for him to have picked up naturally. And it isn't just a few things. If it was 1 or 2, I could easily explain that away as just pure luck or him making a good guess based off of what archaic should sound like. But there's a lot and some of them don't show up in his later writings. And then there's the evidence from the Original Manuscript that makes it look like Joseph was actually reading the text and not generating it at that time (I think this is where the "tight control" really comes from for Skousen). There was a person on the forum (I think it was JarMan or something) that posited a French scholar who originally wrote the Book of Mormon, then it was translated into English in the 1600s, and then another person updated it with some more modern English before it made it to Joseph. That was quite the theory but difficult for me to accept.

I think everything that they used to say was modern has now been found in EModE. There's also things that they once attributed to EModE only have been shown to also be in modern. But I don't think there is anything left that is "modern only". It is kind of hard since there isn't a "grand theory" but just a bunch of data points.

KJV is EModE. It was originally written in 1611. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/skousen/2023-09-28/byus_59.1_royal_skousen_the_history_of_the_bom_text_2020_87-128.pdf talks about part 5 of volume 3 which is about KJV quotations and it says: It also says a little farther down: And then a little farther down it says: So, simple reading, the KJV that was used is after the 1760s (probably the 1769 version). But only one data point (which is about a difference in an italic word) gives that date and the rest push it earlier to about 1660s (which is at the end of the EModE era). I agree that it is not easy to follow, especially when date ranges are used that don't even overlap. Some of the EModE that Carmack has mentioned were heavily used in the 1500s and some were heavily used in the 1600s. It is possible for 1 person to use both but it is odd. The EModE is really curious to me. I'm getting to the point that I can't see how Joseph could have done it but I don't know what that means.

Doubtful. There was a news article I came across where the victim didn't expect any since her father is over 70 and he isn't that wealthy. Might have gotten hundreds of thousands but definitely not the full amount.

The "portion of the case" is the part of the case where the church was a defendant. The original lawsuit had the church, the father, and the mother as defendants. The church settled for $1 million, then the mother for $200,000. After that, it finally went to a jury trial and the father didn't even show up. So the verdict from the jury was technically only against the father. Only the father has to pay that large amount. https://apnews.com/article/california-child-sexual-assault-lawsuit-settlement-b0b80f5f6cd3fdb3882f8ba4ed78bc29

The $2.28 billion verdict wasn't against the church. They had already settled. The $2.28 billion was only against the father and he didn't even show up to argue the case so it was a default jury verdict. I doubt the same $2.28 billion would have happened if the church was still involved in the case.

My understanding is that Carmack (and I think Skousen as well) speculates that everything can be attributed to EModE. The only modern English is spelling (through the scribes). But I am really curious on what are all the changes that occur in 3 Nephi and what that is supposed to mean.

I haven't ever heard about women blessings being used by fundamentalists in that manner. I'd have to go find it. But there were 2 apostles that the leaders of the church did worry about: John W. Taylor (John Taylor's son) and Matthias F. Cowley. But I don't believe any of the major fundamentalists claim authority through them. They were excommunicated (Taylor) or suspended (Cowley). Most fundamentalists claim their authority directly through President John Taylor, the 1886 revelation, and Loren Wooley. And that claim is very much disputed.

I was reading the article from Deseret News about President Oaks tour of the temple and it had a picture that I couldn't place in the temple. It is the picture at https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/05/08/president-oaks-tours-salt-lake-temple-following-april-surgery/ with the caption "Church President Dallin H. Oaks, left, and President Henry B. Eyring, first counselor in the First Presidency, right, look at a stained-glass depiction of the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Salt Lake Temple on Friday, May 8, 2026, in Salt Lake City." I'm pretty certain that is the picture of the Holy of Holies. https://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com/2017/02/latter-day-stained-glass-part-2-first.html has another older picture of the Holy of Holies. This new picture looks like it is from the Celestial Room into the Holy of Holies. It includes the short set of stairs from the Celestial Room to the Holy of Holies.

Your last question is hard. I think ward leaders and stake leaders should be able to write a letter in their personal capacity with no reference to their church callings. I don't think area leaders or higher should. That's because an area leader is usually called for a much longer time while ward/stake leaders have shorter times. So you could have a person who was the bishop during the actual crime but is no longer a bishop. Should he be prevented from writing a letter? He is no longer the bishop. I do think Kirton McConkie shouldn't have asked for prosecutors to flag the letters. That feels wrong and the prosecutors shouldn't have sent them the letters.

Is this one of the things that switches around 3 Nephi? I was recently asking claude about the therefore to wherefore switch, and it pointed out that from Mosiah to 3 Nephi, it was mostly 3rd person narrative (Mormon abridging the plates). Then from 3rd Nephi to Words of Mormon, it has a lot of 1st person (3rd Nephi has Christ speaking, Mormon is from Mormon's point of view, Moroni is Moroni and epistles from Mormon, and the small plates are all 1st person). And that could possibly explain the switch of therefore to wherefore. Could that explain the other things that you've found?

I would say it is ambiguous by itself. This structure, by itself, doesn't argue for or against EModE. Joseph could have had it as part of his idiolect (as I think Davis calls it). But he only uses it once in D&C and uses it 7 times in the Book of Mormon. So did he pick it up because of what he learned from the Book of Mormon? Or did he have it before? He doesn't use it enough to make the case either way. He uses the other form that you've pointed to several times but that is an EModE form that lasts into modern English so that form doesn't help in this argument either. For me, the main draw to EModE isn't just one or two structures like this. It is that there are a bunch and some aren't as easily explained.

Talking about the holdings in EPA, the Widows Mite site has discovered that in the last quarter, EPA liquidated almost $6 billion in stocks (about 9% of their total stock holdings). No idea on why (could be allocating to bonds, moving to different managers to hide the size, the church needed the cash, etc). But it is interesting based on this conversation.

That's not what I seemingly believe. The "for this cause ... that X may|might <infin>" is also another form. But it is different from the "for this cause that X may|might". Both are in EModE. The former still shows up in modern English. The later is pretty much gone.

The version with the extended passages is very common. Totally agree. But Carmack isn't talking about that syntax. He is talking about a specific linguistic structure that doesn't have the extended passages. I had to go to an AI to help me understand I basically asked it to compare your examples to what Carmack's structure and it said they are different. The ones Carmack is looking at doesn't have the extended passages and is archaic. It shortcuts the text in a way that modern English doesn't do. So comparing the two types is a completely different argument than what Carmack is saying. The "cause" by itself isn't what makes it archaic. From the AI: It is the syntactic pattern where a “cause/end” phrase directly governs a purpose “that”-clause without a verb in between I also asked the AI about these 3 examples. Apparently only the Shelley one is equivalent. The other two, even though they have the same words, their clause types are different. For the Hershell one, the "that" class is an explanation clause which is different somehow. For the House of Commons one, the it doesn't have a modal (may/might) or an infinitive sense. (I'm paraphrasing what the AI said). I'm not a linguist and had to pester the AI multiple times to try and understand it. I gave it every instance you had and only gave it the 7 that Carmack listed. Your examples are not the same as what Carmack is focusing on.

I think the addition of the clause in between "for this cause" and "that" is a completely different linguistic structure. The usage of just "for this cause that X may/might" is the archaic phrase. Adding a clause in between the two is not archaic. So, I guess you could argue that Joseph, in 7 instances, just dropped the inner clause to make it sound more archaic. Or that it is evidence that it was archaic from the start.